Why do you guys always want to vote for teams with lesser known, lesser accomplished players. In Agents team, Faulkner is probably the only one who can be regarded an ATG, and other very good pick being Ames. My team has Headley, Barnes and Nourse with great test records.

Why do you guys always want to vote for teams with lesser known, lesser accomplished players. In Agents team, Faulkner is probably the only one who can be regarded an ATG, and other very good pick being Ames. My team has Headley, Barnes and Nourse with great test records.

I personally consider Faulkner, Ames, Macartney, Tate and Jardine ATGs as cricketers. And then he's filled the rest of his gaps with players like Vijay Merchant and Lindsay Hassett and Stewie Dempster who I rate incredibly highly at this level, as well.

As I said previously, it's not far off what my favourite pre-war XI would look like.

Why do you guys always want to vote for teams with lesser known, lesser accomplished players. In Agents team, Faulkner is probably the only one who can be regarded an ATG, and other very good pick being Ames. My team has Headley, Barnes and Nourse with great test records.

I'm actually glad you see it that way, to be perfectly honest. I knew so little about this era that I made a conscious decision to draft a more balanced side over going for superstars. I could've looked at stats and test records all day but this era's stats don't say much - there are tons of players who've played a few series, had amazing stats but were unceremoniously dumped and never heard from again. In that context, it's very difficult to judge who the Stuart Clarks and Ryan Sidebottoms were, and who the Shane Bonds were.

That's why my first four picks were two all-rounders, a keeper-batsman and a captain, and I think that approach has worked out pretty well. My side looks like one you'd build in 2012 - players in their preferred positions, bats all the way down to 9, has 5 genuine bowling options (all different kinds of bowlers too) in the kind of attack my shrewd skipper would thrive in leading, and is generally filled with players that were rated very highly by journalists, their teammates and even their opponents. Even those in my team that didn't play much, Merchant, Dempster and Cowie for example, were by all accounts legends and could've made a much bigger mark on the game if they were only afforded the opportunity.

Would I have loved to have Hobbs/Headley/Barnes, or Hutton/Sutcliffe/Lohmann like morgieb does? Absolutely, but I knew that was never going to be a realistic option for the kind of side I wanted to build. The only player I really regret missing out on in this entire draft is Compton - I actually thought people would overlook when he debuted and that I'd end up with an aggressive batting superstar, the romance pick so to speak.

On the other hand, I count myself very lucky to have both Faulkner and Tate - the best batting and bowling all-rounders available - and Ames in my team. It's a bit like drafting Sobers, Imran and Gilchrist, so I was genuinely surprised when Tate lasted well into the third round. I was certain he'd go immediately after I picked Faulkner so I guess I lucked out in that regard.

Originally Posted by Eds

I personally consider Faulkner, Ames, Macartney, Tate and Jardine ATGs as cricketers. And then he's filled the rest of his gaps with players like Vijay Merchant and Lindsay Hassett and Stewie Dempster who I rate incredibly highly at this level, as well.

As I said previously, it's not far off what my favourite pre-war XI would look like.